Coleman v. Block, Civ. No. A1-83-47.
Decision Date | 14 November 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. A1-83-47. |
Citation | 580 F. Supp. 192 |
Parties | Dwight COLEMAN, Lester Crowsheart, Sharon Crowsheart, Russel Folmer, Anna Mae Folmer, George Hatfield, June Hatfield, Donald McCabe, Diane McCabe, Gary Barrett, Rosemary K. Barrett, Richard L. Harmon, Betty J. Harmon, Larry L. Robertson, Nancy K. Robertson, Ross Wade and Maureen Wade, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John R. BLOCK, Secretary of Agriculture; Charles W. Shuman, Administrator of the Farmers Home Administration; Ralph W. Leet, State Director of the Farmers Home Administration; Harold T. Aasmundstad, Glen W. Binegar, Allen G. Drege, Dennis W. Larson, Odell O. Ottmar, and Joseph J. Schneider, as District Directors of the Farmers Home Administration for North Dakota; and Samuel Delvo, Lorace Hakanson, Larry Leier, Charles Schaefer and James Well, as County Supervisors of the Farmers Home Administration in North Dakota, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Sarah M. Vogel, Grand Forks, N.D., for plaintiffs.
Arthur R. Goldberg, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, D.C., Gary Annear, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fargo, N.D., for defendants.
On May 5, 1983, I certified a class of North Dakota FmHA borrowers and granted a preliminary injunction as to that particular class. 562 F.Supp. 1353 (D.N.D. 1983). On September 20, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint that would expand the state-wide class to a national class. Plaintiffs later moved for a preliminary injunction applicable to the proposed national class. Following a hearing on these matters, I granted Plaintiffs' motion of September 20 for leave to file an amended complaint and certified the following class:
Order of October 28, 1983 100 F.R.D. 705, 708.
Id. at 708. Plaintiffs have advised the Court by letter that no additional defendants are deemed necessary to this action.1
In the last two weeks, Defendants have made no showing that the present preliminary injunction should be amended. See Order of October 28, 1983 at 708. Nor have Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' November 4th letter which asserts that the injunction, pursuant to Plaintiffs' motion of October 7, should have a nation-wide effect. I have received briefs from both parties on the issue and each party had the opportunity to present arguments to the Court at the previous hearing. Moreover, I am obliged to ensure that the Plaintiffs' apparent procedural rights, based on statutory and Constitutional provisions, are enforced until the Court makes a decision on the merits and a final determination of the contents of the permanent injunction.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman v. Block
...court on the same matters. On November 14, 1983, the Court entered a preliminary injunction applying to the national class. 580 F.Supp. 192 (D.N.D.1983). Following a status conference that was held on November 21, 1983, the Court issued a pretrial order requiring the consolidation and clari......
-
Coleman v. Block
...November, 1985, in order to comply with the terms of this court's preliminary and permanent injunctions in this case. See Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 192 (D.N.D.1983) and Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 194 (D.N.D. 1984). Defendants brought a motion for an order granting a summary judgment ......
-
Love v. U.S.
...which failed without it. The Loves apparently are members of a nationwide class certified by the district court in Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 192 (D.N.D.1984). The class all persons who have obtained a farmer program loan from the Farmers Home Administration, and who are or may be eligib......
-
McBride v. Coleman
...voluntary conveyance by a farmer or depriving a farmer of property in which the agency has a security interest. Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 192, 193-94 (D.N.D.1983). The injunction was made permanent in Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 194, 210-12 (D.N.D.1984), and was vacated as moot (becau......